John Carter of Mars now just John Carter? Really?

Ahoy, squirts! Quint here. In a decision that reeks of clueless executive meddling, it seems that the Edgar Rice Burroughs adaptation John Carter of Mars is now going just by the name John Carter.

Really? So you take a title that has survived decades of pop culture relevance and reduce it so it sounds like a single dad movie starring Tom Hanks?

The title was already compromised to begin with, being that they chose John Carter of Mars over A Princess of Mars, but at least I see the reasoning behind that. The movie is about John Carter, not Dejah Thoris and it's hopefully setting up a big franchise with John Carter.

I get having his name be prominent and hell, one of the books was called John Carter of Mars. So that wasn't a huge deal, but taking it back even further kind of pisses me off. Where's the commitment to the sci-fi spectacle? This smells like marketing execs are getting cold feet because their shitty animated movie had "Mars" in the title and flopped. You know why that movie flopped? Because the trailers look like bottom of the barrel horrible trash.

I'm sure Disney's marketing machine will get behind John Carter in a big way when the time comes, but this drastic step really makes me worried this film is going to be committeed to death by the time it hits screens.

The Film Stage was the first to break this, I believe. (UPDATE: Nope, it was Dark Horizons) So, good on them for the snooping. Hopefully Disney comes to their senses before they start their massive campaign.

John Carter of Mars is a fantastical sci-fi property, and it has mild sexual elements. That kind of thing didn't play over too well at the box office for Sucker Punch. I'm surprised this property is even with Disney.

The Bear and the Bow became the generic Brave, The Frog Princess became the lame Princess and the Frog, and Rapunzel became...gag...Tangled. The simple truth is Disney has idiots who don't know what good titles sound like. This isn't going to change, they have ruined the title to John Carter of Mars, and that's the end of it. I suspect this is the compromise to avoid even worse changes that were requested. It's awful. Disney has not gotten better since the Pixar merger. Actually with Cars 2 coming out, I think Pixar has gotten worse!

Adaptations almost always degrade into this. This one just got started early.
Bad news assholes, but in your rush to fuck this up, your breaking your own shitty Hollywood rules: Branding is everything. You think the yokels are gonna come out to see a movie with just a name for a title? Nah, you gotta catch their attention. "John Carter" won't cut it.

what people outside the big yuppie cities want to see. It's run by business types who don't understand ordinary people at all; if it was run by creative types they might understand ordinary people *a little* and why Edgar Rice Burroughs was popular.
Speaking of early 20th Century fantasy writers, what the hell ever happened with "Solomon Kane"? Did that ever even come out?

1. You name it "Rapunzel" and no little bot will want to go see it.
2. The trailers and TV spots played up the Prince and also made it look like a Shrek movie, thus also potentialy expanding its audience.

I think "Princess" is something to avoid but Disney's had plenty of hits with female names as titles, Alice being the most recent.
And as for the Confederate issue, it didn't stop WB from rolling out Jonah Hex or that curly-haired guy in Twilight... But know this, John Carter, when it comes to bringing Dejah home to meet the folks- she's probably going to be treated no different than if you brought home a black woman or another man instead.

If they wanted something simple yet epic they should have just called it "Mars". I'm against the name change but if they're going to do it, they should pick a name that'll still give people an idea of what the film is about.

because they decided they needed to reboot the franchise before it even starts and do a prequel where he hasn't gone to Mars yet (hence Mars not being needed in the title). He'll be a youthful John Carter pondering his feelings before that darn war even starts up. and there will be an indie music soundtrack by all the kids favorite bands. and Beyonce will sing the title track and Lady Gaga will have a song playing over the end credits. And young John will sparkle when he steps into the sunlight.
F- that!!!! He's on Mars! there are f-ing MARTIANS!! they'll have lots of limbs like those beasts on Pandora! Swords! rayguns! floating ships and hot broads!!!! it's plain as day. they shouldn't screw this up. it's all RIGHT there.

and I remember the girl that played Kayla or whoever from the origins Wolverine movie was supposed to be in this also. I'm not too familiar with the original material, but hopefully this movie is good.

wow and they're still trying to find out what to market it as title wise? then again it's not like wolverine catapulted kitch and lynn collins into superstardom, so there wasn't any immediate need to get out another movie with them featured.

Kitsch is John Carter. Don't judge the kid based on wolverine nobody came out of that mess smelling good. I would however suggest watching the TV version Of Friday Night Lights . Kitsch was absolutely incredible in it. Now maybe that was a situation of right actor to material/character and writers but I am hoping that some of that FNL shine lands on John Carter of Mars.

If so, it will be fine.
I think they're going this way for the branding, kind of like they did with Narnia where they had that as the main title and 'The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe' was secondary.

A truly faithful adaptation of the book would be rated R for nudity and violence, but this will be rated PG-13 so there wont be any age restrictions and THE CORPORATION can ring every penny out of those half price child tickets. They took the word "Princess" out of the title so they wouldn't scare away even one little boy from buying a ticket to a movie about an icky girl. And now they've taken "Mars" away because those same little boys didn't buy enough tickets to a totally unrelated movie that happened to have "Mars" in the title. Meanwhile, those little boys are not adverse to going on the internet. Every one of them is going to know the movie is based on a novel called "A Princess Of Mars" well before it ever shows up at a multiplex near them. And, unless it's total shite, they'll still go to see it. I may not, though. These pussy maneuvers Disney is making with the title don't instill much faith in the movie for me. Maybe I wont hand over the cash for a full price adult ticket. This is looking like a Netflix movie to me.

I can see the series (if we get sequels) being titled "John Carter and the..." but that doesn't mean this can get away with just being John Carter. That is, frankly, too bland and ordinary a name to carry any weight. If I had my druthers I guess I'd like to see it be "John Carter and the Princess of Mars." Why are they shortening this so ridiculously when many (popular) movies have long, cumbersome titles? John Carter... that is just not going to sell tickets. That title could significantly hurt the box office.

If they are afraid of using Mars in the title (which is, in itself, stupid since the movie is all about Mars and the trailers wil undoubtedly show this), why not something like John Carter: Warlord or something...anything... to indicate the movie might be something adventury/cool?

yeah I hope my earlier comments didn't seem down on him, or even collins, I actually like Kitch (personally I think his name Riggins from fnl sounds derivative of riggs in the lethal weapon series to invoke a sense of badd ass-ness in his character, in a good way). I liked how when the coach caught him with his daughter in the bedroom together riggs could've put coach's daughter on blast but instead chose to take the fall for her, and the ensuing apology from the coach when he found out what his daughter was up to before coming into the room. When I first heard of him as Gambit I was kinda disappointed as I had pictured Josh Hartnett doing it, but after catching fnl I thought the guy could pull it off, and he did imo (all things considered). I was just trying to point out the reaction to origins wolverine didn't do much for them

...when they took "RITA HAYWORTH AND THE" off King's title? This is silly stuff to get worked up about, like who cares. I agree with smoking robot, the books weren't exactly classics. <p>The big concern for Disney would have to be moviegoers seeing it as an Avatar knock-off.
<P>
I just want to get a look at Willem Dafoe's mo-cap antics, can't wait!

Fright Night, Thing, Carrie, Total Recall, Conan, and from every other remake/re-imagining, all I read is the same thing: "If it's a re-imagining, why not call it something else?"
Well, here ya go. A remake is being titled something different, and... now you want the original title back.
flip flipping mother fuckers.

I agree that arc with Riggins living at Coach Taylor's was excellent and especially the parts you mentioned but I have to hand it the writers and Kitsch for this current season of Riggins on FNL. Absolutely top notch and at times emotionally devastating arc Riggins took the final season. I am going to miss that show, in my opinion pound for pound FNL was the best show on TV the past 5 season that almost nobody watched.

Filmmaking has really become a coward's domain. In TV and cable, you can take so many risks, because it's less costly to do. Between advertisers and pay-subscribers, you don't have to worry about the gamble of selling a ticket.
But so what? Every movie ever made was, is, and will be a gamble. Solid movies flop, dumb-ass movies rake in billions. But a coward's a coward, and Disney truncating this title to please some phantom moron audience reeks of cowardice.
Story, character, spectacle. That's what we shell out these dollars for. I don't care if it's Fast Five, or Fast and Furious 5: Rio Heist, I just want a good movie. "John Carter" will kick our ass just as hard as "John Carter of Mars" would, or "A Princess of Mars."
Keep in mind, "A Couple of Dicks" as a movie would have been just as bad as "Cop Out," but the title change would've been a spoonful of sugar infused within the whole piece. Die Hard 4.0 would have been a better fit. Titles matter. Everything matters, but only so much.
I'll be more pissed off if Stanton lets me down (he won't); Disney I almost expect them to (Pirates 4). Yes, this is a "fuck-you" from Disney, but an even bigger "fuck-you" would be shutting this flick down after pre-pro.
If this eases the collective mind of the corporate cowardice culture, then fine. Screw the title. We know what the movie's called, that's fine. But Disney has screwed themselves out of a good thing before, and almost let Pixar fly out of grasp.
Constructivism has taught Disney that cowardice works. I say we show them it doesn't, by putting "John Carter of Mars" on everything having to do with it, Bat-logo '89 style. Refer to it as nothing else.
I say we don't march to the coward's drum. They took a chance on us, with UP, with WALL-E, with John Carter on Mars. We just need Disney to keep taking chances.

Brand name recognition = good
Aspects of property that are esoteric or dont fit exactly with present pop culture form = bad
Congratulations, your now a movie exec, ( your complete lack of judgement and understanding will follow by post).

in the book JC states on the first page 'I am better known as Captain Jack Carter'
everyone will be lining up thinking its the highly anticipated sequel to Get Carter (the Sly remake one..not the classic original)

the setting: London 1970
Jack Carter is in the middle of a gangland shootout, outnumbered he hides in nearby alley and is overcome with fumes rising from the ground.
he awakes and finds himself in a curious land where the natives speak in a curious tounge and drink a curious brown liquid called 'Brown ale'

And that did just wonders for its box office, right? Right?
Hollywood executives don't know WHAT the fuck they are doing.
Good movies are made DESPITE the process, not because of it.
We all know this. It'll be as true next decade as it was last decade.
Why is anyone surprised by this shit?

So the movies will be named...
John Carter and the Princess of Mars
John Carter and the Gods of Mars
John Carter and the Warlords of Mars
Just like we had stuff like Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark, IJ and the Temple of Doom, IJ and the Last Crusade, etc...
This makes for a nice trilogy.

John Carter Of Mars says it all, doesn't it? Those people of old were unto something when they invented titles for their stories. The title was a way to sell the story, the title itself was already an advertizement.

its was, is, and always shall be "RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK"
THATS IT!
hang on letme see my dvd box set to see what thats got on it...
holy shit my dvd says 'IJ and the ROTLA' man i never even noticed that b4! i actually bought that?! those mother fuckers!!

All kidding aside, the only vivid memory I have of this series is the Marvel comics, with awesome colorful cover art done by, I think it was Gil Kane? Ah, the 70's... 25 cent comics, with so many great selections to choose from. Damn those were the days.
I am looking forward to this film though. And I agree. They need to get the "Mars" part in the title.

Maybe the religious idiots will think it is about Jesus Christ and make it a box office smash. Regardless of what they call it, this is definitely going to be a niche film. I like the John Carter comics but had no knowledge of him before that other than the occasional rumor that Schwarzenegger would play him ten years ago. A lot will depend on the success of Cowboys & Aliens to see if people get really get interested in the idea of a civil war vet being transported to Mars.

I'll still have faith in the movie as long as Andrew Stanton's direction isn't compromised. Both of his directorial works are among the best movies of the past decade, and that's not to mention his top notch writing. In his hands I believe that this will be the top movie of 2012.

John Carter of Mars is the title, Disney. Live with it. Makes no sense that you'd lob it off...unless you were some 20-something exec who thinks his $#!+ doesn't stink and is god's gift to marketing and knows better than any fanboy. Idiots.

John Carter may just be the short hand working title.
They apparently don't really understand what they've got.
It's not really science fiction.
It's sci-fi influenced fantasy. If they went with that approach and took it serious they could do something good.

Cmon, everyone here wants to see Dejah Thoris' tits and ass but it won't happen. There's no way this movie will do justice to the book. Might as well not make it if you're not gonna do it right and by doing it right = R Rating due to violence and casual nudity.

and prattling on about the sanctity of the "source material" ... And they're probably the same people who asked "Tintin who?" ... Can we have an honest poll as to who has actually read a John Carter book?

Changing "The Bear and the Bow" to "Brave".
Hey Disney, your audience is capable of stringing more than two words together to comprehend a title. I mean, I like brevity, but brevity without purpose is simply dumb.

at least ten or eleven, and although they are silly and flawed, I enjoyed them. But they have a quality to them that I believe to be unfilmable. Especially by Disney. I mean, just look at the cover art above. Does that look like something Disney would be able to faithfully reproduce? Let me save you the trouble of answering: "NO." I say, scuttle the project now before it hits theaters and disappoints all but the most undiscerning moviegoers.

sounds like a movie about a nobody that defies some convoluted legal nonsense against big corporations by being persistent and righteous but probably gets a divorce somewhere in the middle. And definitely has to dodge some bullets and crashes his car in a chase.

I was introduced to John Carter through the great Marvel Comics series. That led me to the Burroughs books. The film should be called "John Carter: Warlord of Mars" in big letters with colorful pulpy graphic design. We'll get the polished metal look... again. The Disney marketing dorks need to sit down and shut the fuck up. Hopefully Lasseter will lay down the law and let Stanton name it properly. If the execs don't think that the word "Mars" will hook the kiddies, the name "John Carter" will? No one younger than 40 even knows who the fuck John Carter is. It isn't like Tarzan. And we should mention that this movie is going to totally blow people away. This film is going to be a game changer, the game changer Hollywood desperately needs. I mean it. When you start to see snippets here and there, you'll understand that they could call it "Sanford and Son of Pluto" and it won't matter. But it damn well matters to me. Marketing dorks, take your demographic reports and surveys, roll them up nice and tight, bend over slightly, and place them in your anus.

Hollywood will be scouring all the old pulp magazines (Weird Tales, Amazing/Astounding Stories etc) and famous stuff looking for quirky movie material
that is if 'John Carter' (of Mars) is a hit...
if not forget it baby

guys name titles should be reserved only for those characters already established in the public conscious - Sherlock Holmes, Robin Hood Indiana Jones (remember they didnt use 'IJ' until hed been established), Rambo
they should call it 'John Carter of Mars' or 'JC Warlord of Mars'
unless it aint gonna be Mars (like in Spielbergs WOTW - although i never bought they wernt from frickin Mars!)

ive tried a few times and just cant do it. once he's on Mars i just tune out (yknow that thing where youve read 2-3 pages and like NOTHING has gone in and you realise youve been going over things in your life instead?)
eventually i had to skip to the end where he (SPOILERS) wakes up in the cave again and wikied the rest
i dunno what it is...its like as soon as ERB starts describing the martians BAM i tune out. maybe its because i know it cant happen what with Mars being dead and all i dunno
love the set up though - the whole Carter escaping from the indians in the cave and then sniffing some smoke and going up to mars
although can someone explain exactly what happens please - what exactly is the smoke supposed to be and how did it cause him to get to mars and who is the mummified woman in the cave at the end? was it 10 years he was gone for? was it asterial projection that caused him to go to mars? (wiki aint that clear on that stuff)

didnt it get its title changed as well? from 'World of Tomorrow' to 'Sky Captain and the WOT' - trying to difference itself more from 'Day After Tomorrow' out the same summer
it wasnt too bad but just has no rewatchabilty factor (plus i think Law and Paltrow were miscast)

Isn't this PIXAR'S first live action type movie? Everyone's saying "fuck Disney" but haven't they brought us like some of the best films in history??? "Up" is a pretty stupid title, but it's a freaking fantastic film.

...is the SHIT! Why is this being fed to the Disney crap-tastic machine? This should be given to someone who will make it like it should be. Great, sci-fi fantasy is what I see in that artwork, full of adventure, beautiful women, and frightening aliens hunting are hero down on the planet of War. Too bad it'll probably suck.

Kids are not going to know who "John Carter" is and if kids don't see it, there will not be a series no matter how good the movie is. I already fear that the movie will suffer from efforts to differentiate it from Avatar, the way that god-awful "Spirit" movie (*sigh*) had to deal with "Sin City" being made before it.

The name "John Carter of Mars" was the 11th book of the series, and was written by Burrough's son, not the original author. It is also a bit hackneyed and not the best book by far in the series (originally ten books), none of which had "John Carter" in the title. However, with the exception of the fourth book, which is about Carter's and Dejah's son, Carthoris, the series is about John Carter and much of it is written in the first person by Captain Carter himself. So, the title is fine. I read all the books several times many, many years ago (try 45+ years) and always thought they'd make a good movie, or series of movies. I also read all 22 of the Tarzan books by Burroughs, who (like Rowling) wasn't a great writer, but a superb story teller. If the film(s) stay true to the story and don't get too caught up in special effects and making caricatures out of the characters, then it might have a chance. From what I've read about the director's motives and sensibilities approaching the project, I'll pay my money and take my chances.

Obviously never read the trashy paperbacks by Ballentine and Ace back in the 60's (the latter having the covers done by the master Frazetta himself and helped launch is fame...) This is a hodge-podge of various elements that use some of Frazetta's renderings, but without his sense of style. A bit too cartoony, I will grant you.